This was posted 15 years 3 months 25 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

$99.99 for 3.5" WD Caviar Green 1TB (WD10EADS, SATA II, 5400-7200rpm, 32MB Cache) $11 shipping

640
$99.99 for 3.5" WD Caviar Green 1TB (WD10EADS, SATA II, 5400-7200rpm, 32MB Cache) $11 shipping
Go to Deal
gabbyh on 11/07/2009 - 08:27 store.9289.com.au (2599 clicks)
Last edited 14/07/2009 - 08:25 by 1 other user

$99.99 for 3.5" Western Digital Caviar Green 1TB (WD10EADS, SATA II, 5400-7200rpm, 32MB Cache)
Shipping is $11 flat rate Australia wide.

1TB Hard Drives from Western Digital finally below the $100 mark. Was waiting for this and have just bought one. Specification page at Western Digital website here http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=559

Terms & Conditions
1. This offer commences on 11/07/2009 and closes on 17/07/2009
2. This offer is strictly limited to ONE (1) unit per item per registered
customer.Order(s) will not be processed if purchase quantity greater than 1
3. Web order must be placed prior to pick up or delivery of product(s)
4. 9289.com.au reserve the right to withdraw or amend this offer at any time
5. Promotion product(s) is only available whilst stocks last
6. This offer cannot be used in conjunction with any other offer
7. Stock availabilities are subject to change without further notice

Mod - edited title and description. Rotational speed listed as 5400-7200rpm (as per Western Digital website) until proven otherwise.

Computing 1000GB 1TB 9289.com.au GreenPower WD10EADS Western Digital

Related Stores

9289.com.au
9289.com.au

closed Comments

  • Koonit on 11/07/2009 - 09:04
    +1

    They've finally hit under the 100 dollars mark! :P

    Excellent deal mate. Thanks!

    According to the site, there's an $11 flat rate, Australia -wide. I put in a few different postcodes with the same result. So it's possibly been changed.

    • gabbyh on 11/07/2009 - 09:20

      Thanks for the info Koonit. Will update the deal.

    • fchis on 11/07/2009 - 11:10

      10 cents/GB is finally here.

  • TheBooleanOne on 11/07/2009 - 09:19
    +1

    If anyone gets one, can they post the full model number printed on the drive?

    I'm looking to get one of these, but only the 500GB platter models. They're WD10EADS-00M2B0.

    My guess is that they're purging their 3 platter models to make way for the 2 platter models, but it doesn't hurt checking.

    Good price either way though.

    • gabbyh on 11/07/2009 - 09:24

      No worries, will post info when I get it although I suspect that by that time they will be out of stock. Maybe someone that is going to pick up can assist?

      • parta on 11/07/2009 - 13:58

        They're getting stock Mon/Tues, I'll be paying by EFTPOS when I pick up. =)

    • AvvY on 11/07/2009 - 16:26

      What's the difference between a 2 and 3 platter drive? I'm keen on picking up a couple/few of these for backups (even keeping them offline once full) so would it make a difference? Cheers

      • TheBooleanOne on 11/07/2009 - 16:31

        It comes down to a few things, probably negligible in the scheme of things but anyway here it goes:

        Less platters means less moving parts. This means less things to go wrong with it overall.
        Less moving parts also means less power consumed.

        • AvvY on 11/07/2009 - 16:39

          That makes sense. I wonder what the one I picked up the other week was then grabs screwdriver to pull apart enclosure. I'm just miffed this is limited to 1 per customer, but that's fair enough too. It's still $8 cheaper than centrecom

      • wisc on 14/07/2009 - 10:33

        Also when there are less platters the drives are typically faster, as the data is more compressed onto a platter, more data per platter = more compressed = faster read rate as the drive spins at 7200 or 5400 RPM. (so its a constantish figure)

    • Funkdafied on 15/07/2009 - 10:32
      +2

      I just got mine and it is WD10EADS-00M2B0

      • gabbyh on 15/07/2009 - 11:27

        That would suggest it is the 2 platter version. Link with info

      • TheBooleanOne on 15/07/2009 - 13:58

        Thanks for the confirmation. Just placed my order now.

        • gabbyh on 15/07/2009 - 14:25

          Am surprised that the deal has not sold out by now as similar deals did previously. They must have adjusted their stock levels given previous experiences.

  • LoCure on 11/07/2009 - 10:06
    +6

    "3% additional charge for Visa/Master Card payments"
    Heads up for everyone!!

    • WingedNike on 11/07/2009 - 13:20

      Ouch!

    • cyssero on 11/07/2009 - 13:42

      Standard fee!!

      • corkster on 12/07/2009 - 20:28
        -1

        Standard fee? I don't get charged 3% by Dell to use my CC. I don't get charged 3% by Woolworths to use my CC?
        This is one of the few stores that has the audacity to force the customer to pay, instead of absorbing it.

        • BlinkyBill on 12/07/2009 - 20:33
          +4

          It's just the cost of doing business. How do expect a low cost box shifter to "absorb" it when there margins are so low. Don't like it then pay by DD or cash in person. Comparing a smaller outfit to a multi-national or a major chain isn't fair.

        • cyssero on 12/07/2009 - 20:46
          +3

          Audacity? Are Dell selling 1TB drives for near cost price? Do Woolies do free-shipping storewide like 9289 has done for the last 2-3 months?

          Are you honestly questioning why they are charging the 3% surcharge? They are simply passing on what costs they have to pay. Don't want to pay it? Then use bank-deposit!

          Is it audacious when all airlines bar Tiger are charging you between $4 and $25 PER TICKET for a 'credit card' fee? With no option to use bank-deposit?

    • Techie on 11/07/2009 - 15:56
      +2

      And they transfer CC details in plain text, no encryption.

    • AvvY on 11/07/2009 - 17:54

      This was the bit that made me not complete my order. At $114, I'd rather pay the extra $5 and get it from my local outlet so I can return it if need be. Otherwise if I could pick this up fantastic deal, can't wait for this pricing to spread.

      • McMerc on 11/07/2009 - 19:15

        agreed

  • clementlow on 11/07/2009 - 10:46

    OMGGGG BARRGAIN!!!!!

  • Frantic on 11/07/2009 - 14:02
    +1

    Damnit I want 2! Grr..

    Is this better or the Samsung (HD103UI)?

    • GreenGuava on 11/07/2009 - 14:57
      +2

      The HD103UI is Samsung's EcoGreen (low-power) model. It is reported to operate at 5400rpm, but depending on your needs, it isn't necessarily better or worse than the 7200rpm WD10EADS featured here

  • illumination on 11/07/2009 - 15:14

    That's a bloody good price..!

    Would it be slower than the normal WD hard drive though?

  • baskinghobo on 11/07/2009 - 15:29
    -6

    That's a dollar for each GB!

    • quackster on 11/07/2009 - 15:47
      +3

      actually, 10 cents!

    • mick123 on 11/07/2009 - 17:38
      -1

      just out of curiosity, why give negative votes to a comment just because he calculated wrong - harsh judges here lol

      • dudeeeeeeee on 12/07/2009 - 00:07
        +1

        maybe coz that was just a retarded comment to make when someone said it was 10c/Gb 4 hours be4 baskinghobo made the comment

  • mily on 11/07/2009 - 17:07

    Such a good bargain. I feel regret to purchase a 640G 16M cache WD for $91 @ MSY. But I will let this one go anyhow, coz before I could fill up the current 640G, the price for 1TB disk would be much lower than this I reckon.

    • mick123 on 11/07/2009 - 17:37

      yea I feel the same. I have got 2 external 1TB + 1 internal 1TB. the 2 external are only half full each, so am thinking, this is a bargain, but i wont need another 1TB for about 6-12 months, and price should have dropped by then anyway.
      I am going Asia soon too so might see if I can pick up some electrical bargains there.

  • defier on 11/07/2009 - 17:27
    +1

    green = 5400rpm. the WD10EADS are NOT 7200rpm. it has been proven that they are 5400rpm. only the blue/black wd's are 7200rpm.

    • gabbyh on 11/07/2009 - 17:47
      -1

      .

    • HueyData on 11/07/2009 - 17:53
      +1

      Thanks for pointing that out defier, it slipped under my attention.

      The WD10EADS is described by Western Digital as "5400-7200RPM", although it has been shown by a variety of means that the rotational speed for most (not all) Caviar Greens is simply 5400RPM. (One of the more interesting methods being SilentPCReview's acoustical analysis of another Caviar Green model.)

      If the WD10EADS is somehow the exception to the rule (and is 7200RPM as claimed by most stores - not only 9289), I'm happy to stand corrected - until then, the rotational speed will be listed as 5400RPM-7200RPM.

      Edit - Note if the WD10EADS is only 5400RPM, that doesn't make this a bad deal. I have a 5400RPM WD10EACS myself - performance is ordinary but the capacity, low power consumption/heat and low noise/vibration were the reasons I chose it.

      • gabbyh on 11/07/2009 - 18:12
        +1

        Knew that the WD10EACS (4 platter, 16mb cache) had been proven to be 5400rpm however thought that due to this they had made changes when they brought out the WD10EADS (3 platter, 32mb cache and 7200rpm)

        Listing the WD10EADS as 7200rpm has little to do with 9289. Take a look on StaticIce. All the other shops list it as 7200rpm as well. Would like to know where they are getting their info from.

        • sneppo on 11/07/2009 - 18:13

          OH CRAP!

          I just sent an email to them as for my money back due to false advertising!!!

          • HueyData on 11/07/2009 - 18:15

            @sneppo: Easy mate, could have jumped the gun there. A minority of Caviar Greens actually are 7200RPM, the "5400-7200RPM" was done by WD to cover the majority slower models.

            Apologies for any confusion caused by my initial post.

            • sneppo on 11/07/2009 - 18:33

              @HueyData: Yeah thanks, I was just a bit pissed off and saw on Toms Hardware the same thing about the 5400-7200RPM.

              I have emailed them again asking to confirm it is not the 5400-7200RPM model.

              I will let you guys know if they don't abuse me and tell me "NO HARD DRIVE FOR YOU!!"

              Total: Price: $114.32

              • HueyData on 11/07/2009 - 18:37

                @sneppo: The Tom's Hardware review is not loading for me beyond the first page (which does not clarify the speed). What was their conclusion?

                • gabbyh on 11/07/2009 - 19:01

                  @HueyData: Had a click through the review and on this page it states "Considering the 5,400 RPM spindle speed, the average access time of 14.8 ms is excellent—there are many 7,200 RPM drives that take more time to locate and access data."

                  And here you can read "The new Caviar Green WD10EADS… it obviously comes with additional improvements that have it perform much better than you’d expect from a drive that only spins at 5,400 RPM…This is the first green drive that we consider suitable for a mainstream desktop PC."

                  Where do Tom's Hardware get the idea that it is 5400rpm? There was no mention of any acoustic tests so did they just assume cary over in terms of spec from the WD10EACS?

                  It must be said that any of the WD Green models, be they newer or older, 16mb cache or 32mb cache, 5400rpm or 7200, can saturate any USB2 link numerous times over. Hence if the purpose is for external storage via USB2 the discussion becomes academic as there will be no noticeable difference in real world performance.

                  Without a doubt it would however still be nice if WD could get rid off all this ambiguity regarding their GP drive specifications.

                  • HueyData on 11/07/2009 - 19:53
                    +1

                    @gabbyh: Well, this has all been a bit of an adventure :)

                    Thanks for copying the info from the Tom's Hardware review, gabbyh. I actually don't have too much regard for TH, but wanted to consider all the evidence.

                    Western Digital has indeed succeeded, as they deliberately intended, in creating confusion about the speeds of the Caviar Green drives - including the implicit deception of dynamic rotational speed. It's amazing there hasn't been a(nother) class action in the US.

                    Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the WD10EADS is 5400RPM even if the evidence is not conclusive. But again, that doesn't make this a bad deal, and reflects no criticism of your post. My positive vote remains.

                    As will WD's 5400-7200RPM description, pending any further findings. I would guess that 9289 simply copied the specs from elsewhere, with no intention to mislead.

                    It must be said that any of the WD Green models, be they newer or older, 16mb cache or 32mb cache, 5400rpm or 7200, can saturate any USB2 link numerous times over. Hence if the purpose is for external storage via USB2 the discussion becomes academic as there will be no noticeable difference in real world performance.

                    The same limitation is true for NAS use. However, my (un-scientific) guess is that more people may use it as an internal drive rather than externally. And the drive speed is a relevant point even if internal use is in the minority.

                    Ultimately in terms of performance, I would advise some caution with benchmarks/reviews (though I would give more weight to this X-bit labs roundup than the TH review) and user opinions. A benchmark, review or opinion cannot guarantee your own personal experience.

                    For instance, I read some relatively good opinions on the WD10EACS (compared to 7200RPM drives) but its performance is ordinary in my experience. It takes me back to, well, when we all had 5400RPM drives. The WD10EACS is my only 5400RPM drive and is the bottleneck in file transfers to/from other drives. But again, there were worthwhile reasons to get it and speed was not one of them.

                    • gabbyh on 11/07/2009 - 20:24

                      @HueyData:

                      I would guess that 9289 simply copied the specs from elsewhere, with no intention to mislead.

                      Agreed. It looks like a lot (if not all) of the shops listed on staticice copied it from somewhere, it would just be nice to know from where. Never saw the WD10EACS advertised as 7200rpm so where they get it from for the WD10EADS is unclear.

                      On the subject of the WD10EACS, there is nothing wrong with that drive either as you point out, especially if being used as external storage over USB2. It was at the time one of the cheapest WD drives and also one of the quietest and coolest. Horses for courses as it were.

        • HueyData on 11/07/2009 - 18:13
          +2

          So far, I've found nothing conclusive on this particular model:

          • This X-bit labs roundup maintains that the WD10EADS is only 5400RPM, although doesn't provide evidence for the claim.

          • Inconclusive discussion on NCIX. (No response from WD?)

          • The opinions in this SilentPCReview thread are 5400RPM but they don't appear to be based on actual testing/ownership and are not authoritative.

          • This post on StorageReview claims there are both 5400RPM and 7200RPM versions of the WD10EADS, which doesn't seem to make much sense.

          • This post on Whirlpool claims the WD10EADS is "noticeably slower" than the owner's 7200RPM 500GB WD drive.

          • The 2TB WD20EADS is only 5400RPM.

  • defier on 11/07/2009 - 19:21
    +1

    @HueyData

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/green-terabyte-1tb,2078-…

    the conclusion from Tom's Hardware:

    "The new Caviar Green WD10EADS stores the same data utilizing fewer moving parts, and it obviously comes with additional improvements that have it perform much better than you’d expect from a drive that only spins at 5,400 RPM."

    a lot of places on staticice are also mistaken by saying its 7200rpm. WD did a good job with confusing the public. these drives are great for storage and at a great price. im just warning those who are expecting it to be a 7200rpm disk when its not.

    • HueyData on 11/07/2009 - 20:27

      WD did a good job with confusing the public. these drives are great for storage and at a great price.

      Everyone's in agreement about those points :)

      im just warning those who are expecting it to be a 7200rpm disk when its not.

      It seems the jury is still out (and probably never coming back) on the WD10EADS rotational speed. I would bet that it is 5400RPM but I suppose anything is possible.

      Really don't know why WD was allowed to get away with this …

  • MrGareth on 11/07/2009 - 19:51
    +1

    I have the WD 640Gb green power drive - the one that runs at 5,400rpm…. sure, it's not as fast as the blue/black, but it's still pretty fast! It benchmarks faster than the older Seagate 320Gb 7,200rpm drive it replaced in my machine…

    I got mine for a HPTC… and they are awesome drives for that - they're silent, and run very cool.

  • poopehz on 11/07/2009 - 21:54
    -2

    I bought this one for my old man when it was $129 or whatever it was from 9289 and if my memory serves me correctly, it is a 7200RPM drive. Might be picking up one for myself methinks.

    Edit: This link should clarify it for everyone. My brain isn't dying just yet, it IS a 7200RPM model.

    http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/10855

    " gabbyh on 14/03/2009 - 19:07 ¶

    The 4 platter WD10EACS utilises something Western Digital marketed as “Intellipower” with an insinuation that the drive somehow changed/adapted RPM depending on how hard it was being used. This was found to be incorrect though and it was in fact just a 5400rpm drive.

    My guess is that the main reason Western Digital made the follow up model (ie. WD10EADS) 7200rpm is because they copped a lot of flak for making their initial ‘Green Power’ models 5400rpm. This was also one of the reasons that I waited for a WD10EADS at this cheap price rather than getting another WD10EACS.

    Must be said though that even the 5400RPM WD10EACS beat a lot of the smaller 7200rpm drives in throughput. This also means that it is more than fast enough to handle any external storage needs, be they via USB2 or Firewire 800. "

    • HueyData on 12/07/2009 - 09:26

      This link should clarify it for everyone. My brain isn’t dying just yet, it IS a 7200RPM model.

      With no disrespect to gabbyh, who has contributed very usefully to this discussion here, where in that comment you quoted is the proof that the WD10EADS is a 7200RPM drive?

      • gabbyh on 12/07/2009 - 09:56

        Was a combination of
        1. all the stores on staticice listing it as 7200rpm
        2. the flak WD took for the WD10EACS
        3. various reviews stating it was considerably faster and the first green drive suitable for being an OS drive as well as it outperforming some 7200rpm drives.

        • HueyData on 12/07/2009 - 10:15

          the flack WD took for the WD10EACS

          Hehe, I don't think WD gave a **** about any negative publicity. And I don't think they needed to - it's hard to imagine they had any problem whatsoever with the Caviar Green line's profitability.

          If it was the case that they were forced to issue a 7200RPM drive to make up for the WD10EACS' shortcomings, then logically they would have taken pains to ensure that the 7200RPM figure got out there in credible channels (if not their official website then pushing out review samples and instructing reviewers to explicitly state that information), to avoid exactly the sort of discussion had here.

          various reviews stating it was considerably faster and the first green drive suitable for being an OS drive as well as it outperforming some 7200rpm drives.

          As defier noted, that could be attributed to the doubled cache and the higher areal density of using fewer platters. Or it could be due to 7200RPM speed - but if it had a combination of all three (on top of lower power consumption/temperature/noise/vibration), I imagine the reviews would be far more numerous and far more unambiguously favourable than they are. For instance, X-bit labs merely concluded that the WD10EADS was the "best home theater PC hard drive" in its roundup of 14 drives.

          The lack of reviews is problematic, as different sites have different methodologies and will make different claims. I was somewhat optimistic about the WD10EACS' performance, based on a few reviews, before I started using it, but the reality in my experience was different.

          • gabbyh on 12/07/2009 - 11:08

            @HueyData: What you write makes sense HueyData. More the fool me for thinking that if you are a company that takes heat for the WD10EACS that you come back with a WD10EADS that is quicker + 7200rpm and still as almost totally silent as the WD10EACS.

            Even Amazon list them as 7200rpm. Shopbot.ca list it as 5400rpm, Shoptbot.com.au list it as 7200rpm. When you Google 'wd10eads 5400rpm' you get about 153,000 results where as when you google 'wd10eads 7200rpm' you get about 171,000 results. If it was WD's intention to create confusion they certainly managed to do that :-(

            Take it you use your WD10EACS as in internal drive HueyData?

            • HueyData on 12/07/2009 - 12:00

              @gabbyh: At this stage, no possibility can be ruled out, other than the possibility of WD actually telling the truth. Will be interesting if the actual speed ever comes to light.

              Take it you use your WD10EACS as in internal drive HueyData?

              Yep. 931GB after NTFS formatting; essentially inaudible; cooler than the other >5400RPM drives by 4-6°.

  • defier on 11/07/2009 - 23:57

    the WD10EACS were 16mb cache, mostly 4 platters. the WD10EADS are 32mb cache, mostly 3 platters (the very new ones are 2 platters), this is why the WD10EADS were "quicker" than the WD10EACS. they are called "Green" for a reason. ie. energy efficient and 5400rpm.

    • sneppo on 12/07/2009 - 01:03

      So how do you think I should demand my money back and cancel the order?

      What official links from WD can I used to prove that it is 5400rpm?

      • HueyData on 12/07/2009 - 09:39

        What official links from WD can I used to prove that it is 5400rpm?

        Have you been following this discussion at all? :)

        WD deliberately acted to confuse/deceive in terms of the Caviar Green drive speeds. If there was an official link from WD saying 5400RPM, there wouldn't have been any discussion here.

        It's safest to assume the drive is 5400RPM, but it could possibly be 7200RPM or some other speed (like Seagate's 5900RPM drives).

        So how do you think I should demand my money back and cancel the order?

        If you feel that the speed issue is grounds for cancelling the order, politely explain the situation and request they cancel & refund.

        • sneppo on 12/07/2009 - 11:03

          Yes I have been following the discussion I just wanted this link: http://support.wdc.com/product/kb.asp?fid=wdfCaviarGreen_SAT…

          as opposed to telling the store "Tom said this 1 year ago."

          I already emailed them saying that I was sorry, but wanted them to clarify if it is 7200 or 5400-7200rpm.

          From the sounds of it is still has pretty good performance, but my main concern is that MSY are selling (probably normal) 1TB WD Hard drives for only $125.

          • gabbyh on 12/07/2009 - 11:17

            @sneppo: That WD link makes even less sense. How can the seek times be identical if they are using different platter densities? The WD10EACS has been proven to be 5400 as far as I know so at least they could have updated that. More ambiguity from WD. Won't stop me buying their products but it would be nice if they could be more straight up with their customers.

            • HueyData on 12/07/2009 - 11:29

              @gabbyh:

              The WD10EACS has been proven to be 5400 as far as I know so at least they could have updated that.

              Again, this was all done deliberately by WD. They of course knew what their own drive speed was, but they have no interest or reason to admit it even now, unless legally compelled.

              It would have been less misleading/deceptive had they not described or mentioned drive speeds at all.

              • gabbyh on 12/07/2009 - 11:44

                @HueyData: So much for 'Intellipower' ;-)

                • HueyData on 12/07/2009 - 11:51

                  @gabbyh: Oh, WD is intelligent, but if only they used their power for good …

          • HueyData on 12/07/2009 - 11:22

            @sneppo: I provided that link a number of times including in the deal description itself :)

            Anyhow, I imagine/hope 9289 will accommodate your request. It would be very interesting - and surprising - if they could provide proof of the speed being 7200RPM (which it still appears to be listed as on their site).

            Supply of goods clause 3 states: "The goods must match the description given to the consumer, or the sample shown." So you should be entitled to a remedy from the seller if they cannot prove the WD10EADS is 7200RPM.

            […] my main concern is that MSY are selling (probably normal) 1TB WD Hard drives for only $125.

            Be cautious with MSY - see the comments on the MSY scraper. No drive speed is given, according to the scraper, which gives them an out.

  • quarrymaster on 12/07/2009 - 10:35

    What an interesting discussion on what may or may not be the specs of a drive!

    It's more a pity there's a limit of 1 per customer. If I could get three or four in a RAID 5 box, in a way the striped performance would probably be rather acceptable even if they only spun at 5,400rpm…

  • MrGareth on 12/07/2009 - 11:21
    +1

    Guys… I know it's been said, but I'll say it again… these newer WD Green Power drives aren't that bad at all. They are generally faster than the older generation "normal" 7,200rpm drives.

    This is because these WD GP drives use less platters, and have a higher density per platter (data is read much faster off higher density platters than the older lower density platters). To rephrase - at 5,400rpm… getting data off a high density platter makes the drive quicker than a 7,200rpm drive reading data off a lower density platter.

    Of course, the newer WD blue/black drives also have these high density platters… and at 7,200rpm they fly.

    All I'm trying to say is that the GP drives aren't as bad as people think… I have three of them in my HTPC (plus a regular 750Gb 7,200rpm drive).

    • HueyData on 12/07/2009 - 11:47

      To rephrase - at 5,400rpm… getting data off a high density platter makes the drive quicker than a 7,200rpm drive reading data off a lower density platter.

      It's much more complicated than that (compare a 334GB-platter Caviar Green to a 37GB-platter Raptor) and there are many, many variables. And, again, different reviews produce different results.

      All I’m trying to say is that the GP drives aren’t as bad as people think…

      It depends on the use, which will be different for every user - as will their subjective opinions. My WD10EACS has very ordinary speed, but that has no relation to its usefulness for me.

      For most mass storage needs, speed shouldn't pose any problem. But people who place a particular priority on speed (in addition to low power/noise/heat) should probably look elsewhere, such as the widely admired Samsung F1 series.

  • frostman on 12/07/2009 - 13:26

    I dont know about 9289's misleading,
    but the last transaction i had with them wasnt very pleasent.

    They advertised a Samsung 22X DVDRW burner.. and the picture had the drive with the Samsung logo at the front.
    When i recieved it. The drive was blank, no logos, nothing, just a "Super Writer Master" logo… even the flat of the drive on the top where the model is usually written said nothing, i installed it, and it was detected as a TSST Corp drive which is some samsung affiliate. They when i emailed them, they said "the terms say that the picture used is for illustration purposes only"…

  • videoman on 12/07/2009 - 13:59

    Damn I only just bought a 1tb hdd a month ago and it cost me $150 >.<

  • acinod on 12/07/2009 - 21:08
    +1

    This is a good drive to use along side an SSD. Put everything that isn't games or OS files into it.

    At $100 this is a bargain considering Officeworks has it on sale for ~$160.

    • atlas on 13/07/2009 - 11:43
      +2

      The OW version is quite different to the version being offered here. The OW one comes in a retail box and I believe only has an 8mb buffer, as compared to 32mb here and I'm assuming just the regular anti-static plastic bag that most hard drives are sold in.

  • GreatWhiteHunter on 13/07/2009 - 09:36

    Agree its a pity it's only 1 per customer.

    I have 2 RAID arrays and only buy 4 at a time

    • parta on 14/07/2009 - 11:05
      +1

      Do you realize that drives from the same batch tend to die at the same time? I hope you're not using RAID as backup!

  • hbk_life on 13/07/2009 - 13:04

    so if im just wanting to use this to store videos it is ok? and a steal of a bargain?

    • gabbyh on 13/07/2009 - 14:00
      +1

      These drives are not slow by any stretch of the imagination. They are a lot faster than all sorts of currently available alternatives. The only situation where they are not optimal would be as your Operating System drive but for backing up videos they are fine.

      Are they a bargain? Well it is the first time that I have ever seen any 1TB hard drive available for under $100. Actually thought that Samsung might be the first but as we now know it turned out to be Western Digital and 9289. I prefer WD so just as well :-)

      • HueyData on 13/07/2009 - 22:22

        so if im just wanting to use this to store videos it is ok?

        That's what I use my slow WD10EACS for.

        Well it is the first time that I have ever seen any 1TB hard drive available for under $100.

        Not quite under $100 with shipping and credit card charges. (That reminds me the title should include shipping.)

        • gabbyh on 14/07/2009 - 08:04

          The folks that are picking it up and paying by EFTPOS or Direct Deposit are getting it for under $100. Lucky them, we can't get it without requiring delivery either.

          9289 have responded to customers re shipping by making it a. reasonably priced and b. flat rate Australia wide thus not disadvantaging folks in eg. Perth. This is also the only reason that it can now be listed as it is the same for everyone purchasing. This was not always the case.

  • macstevi on 13/07/2009 - 23:57

    Paying by direct deposit helps a little bit

  • Kranbone on 14/07/2009 - 01:51

    I'd like to run a server to host files and media in the house so I'm highly considering one of these. Now the hunt is on for a 945 board and perhaps an intel celeron dual core on eBay :D

  • Meld on 14/07/2009 - 02:27

    I only just bought a 1TB hard drive for $109 + shipping from PLE last week.

    I was really, really lusting for the 2TB model. Was going to import one from the US for $330, but then decided to just go for the 1TB.

    If WD dropped the prices of 2TB green power to be roughly the same cost per MB as the 1TB, sales would go through the roof!

    • HueyData on 14/07/2009 - 08:03
      +1

      Seagate 1.5TB is also good value.

      Hitachi has released a 2TB Deskstar, but I wouldn't expect much downward movement in 2TB HDD prices for a long time.

  • ozbillwang on 14/07/2009 - 16:03
    -3

    Just be careful, when you register your private information on its web site: 9289.com.au.

    For my experience, that's a Chinese made website. Because, first Chinese prefer using pure number as web site name. Second, the office location is at an unit in Chatswood (Unit 206, 354 Eastern Valley Way , Chatswood, NSW 2067 ).

    So when you pay online, you should be very careful and make sure if your credit card information will be leaked or not. Because these guys ask your birthday also when you register on its web.

    • camione on 14/07/2009 - 18:36

      Suppose to give a -1 vote, accidentally gave a +1. Anyway, just ignore this person.

    • jiakz on 14/07/2009 - 18:36

      Sorry but I don't get your reasoning ozbillwang.

    • mobius on 15/07/2009 - 08:35

      From the looks of your username you must be Chinese too. You obiously changed your first name to Bill, and your second is a dead give away (Wang).
      I believe you are a competitor trying to discourage people to go to this website!
      BUSTED :0

      • ozbillwang on 15/07/2009 - 10:54
        -1

        Who care these online website. I come to ozbargin just for good price, I am the consumer as you.

        If you don't concern the security, why I need take care of you. Ignore my post then.

  • mertk on 14/07/2009 - 19:08

    Excellent deal Thanks!

  • macstevi on 15/07/2009 - 16:12
    +1

    Just picked up mine today. For those interested, here's the specs:

    Model: WD10EADS-00M2B0
    WWN:50014EE2ADAC4224
    DATE: 28 JUN 2009
    DCM: EBNCHV2MGB
    LBA: 1953525168

  • Hdd_user on 17/07/2009 - 18:11
    -1

    All, WD green drive are designed to run between 5400 ~ 7200rpm, different capacity will have diff spin speed to optimize the performance. Why Green drive still can perform better then other brand 7200rpm? Here's the example, you might driving a Porsche and i am trying a corolla, we both travl from Point A to Point B, in between there are number of traffic light, so the guy driving the porsche will speed all the way and try to arrive Point B first, but when they approach the traffic light turn red (when the data is located), they have to apply hard brake to stop the car there and wait for green light, by my corolla just drive as normal safe speed and by the time it approach the traffic light it turn green and i can continue to drive. If you all understand this concept then you will know why WD sold a lot of drive and no one complain about the performance! If you can't get away think the "7200rpm" then you should consider to use the Caviar Black performance desktop drive. It is fastest desktop drive base on Dual processor, 32m cache, Stable trac "reduce the virbration to avoid miss read data", the drive is build base on raid edition material. Hope all this info help! Cheers

    • HueyData on 17/07/2009 - 22:41

      Hi Hdd_user. Unfortunately, little of what you wrote is correct - e.g. implication that Western Digital designated 5400RPM models to optimise/maximise performance (as opposed to 7200RPM).

      In any event, everything that needs to be said in this discussion has probably already been said.

  • gabbyh on 18/07/2009 - 09:17
    +2

    Got mine during the week, once again very happy with delivery time and packaging.

    As a suggestion, it is always a good idea to run some sort of manufacturer provided hardware diagnostics software when you first receive a hard drive to make sure that you have not received a lemon.

    For Western Digital the relevant tool is Data Lifeguard Diagnostics and can be found on the WD website here http://support.wdc.com/product/download.asp?groupid=608&sid=…

    There is a version for Windows as well as a bootable version that can be burned to CD. Just tested mine and it passed with flying colours.

  • EllenaZ on 08/01/2010 - 23:47

    Very amusing event about this good post, but still this confusion is to hard to debate.That is why we have managed to create a custom writing service to help striving students. They can <a href=" http://www.essaysprofessors.com">buy term paper</a> that is custom and made by professional , <a href=" http://www.essaysprofessors.com">buy essay</a>
    or even <a href=" http://www.essaysprofessors.com">buy research paper</a>. But when people use this kind of avail – an ethical question is raised: Is it ok to use these kinds of services? Is it ok to use them, and will you be punished for using them.

    • Mikinoz on 08/01/2010 - 23:56

      Huh

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join